Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression (PROMDEP): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Depression follow-up monitoring with the PHQ-9: an open cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Outcome monitoring of depression treatment is recommended but there is a lack of evidence on patient benefit in primary care.

AIM

To test monitoring depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) with patient feedback.

DESIGN AND SETTING

An open cluster-randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 141 group practices.

METHOD

Adults with new depressive episodes were recruited through record searches and opportunistically. The exclusion criteria were as follows: dementia; psychosis; substance misuse; and suicide risk. The PHQ-9 was administered soon after diagnosis, and 10-35 days later. The primary outcome was the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 12 weeks. The secondary outcomes were as follows: BDI-II at 26 weeks; Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) and EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality of life at 12 and 26 weeks; antidepressant treatment; mental health and social service contacts; adverse events, and Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS) over 26 weeks.

RESULTS

In total, 302 patients were recruited to the intervention arm and 227 to the controls. At 12 weeks, 254 (84.1%) and 199 (87.7%) were followed-up, respectively. Only 40.9% of patients in the intervention had a GP follow-up PHQ-9 recorded. There was no significant difference in BDI-II score at 12 weeks (mean difference -0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.16 to 1.26; adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering by practice). EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life scores were higher in the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053; 95% CI = 0.013 to 0.093. A clinically significant difference in depression at 26 weeks could not be ruled out. No significant differences were found in social functioning, adverse events, or satisfaction. In a per-protocol analysis, antidepressant use and mental health contacts were significantly greater in patients in the intervention arm with a recorded follow-up PHQ-9 (P = 0.025 and P = 0.010, respectively).

CONCLUSION

No evidence was found of improved depression outcome at 12 weeks from monitoring. The findings of possible benefits over 26 weeks warrant replication, investigating possible mechanisms, preferably with automated delivery of monitoring and more instructive feedback.

Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression: the PROMDEP cluster RCT and economic evaluation

Background

Guidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes.

Objective

To test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback.

Design

Parallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control.

Setting

UK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales).

Inclusion criteria

Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations.

Exclusions

Current depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide.

Intervention

Administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10-35 days later, compared with usual care.

Primary outcome

Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks.

Secondary outcomes

Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events.

Sample size

The original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure.

Randomisation

Remote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location.

Blinding

Blinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation.

Analysis

Linear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks.

Qualitative interviews

Practitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework.

Results

Three hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.46, 95% confidence interval -2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval -0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (-£163, 95% confidence interval -£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming.

Conclusions

We found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients' quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment.

Study registration

This study is registered as IRAS250225 and ISRCTN17299295.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Introducing a depression-like syndrome for translational neuropsychiatry: a plea for taxonomical validity and improved comparability between humans and mice

Depressive disorders are the most burdensome psychiatric disorders worldwide. Although huge efforts have been made to advance treatment, outcomes remain unsatisfactory. Many factors contribute to this gridlock including suboptimal animal models. Especially limited study comparability and replicability due to imprecise terminology concerning depressive-like states are major problems. To overcome these issues, new approaches are needed. Here, we introduce a taxonomical concept for modelling depression in laboratory mice, which we call depression-like syndrome (DLS). It hinges on growing evidence suggesting that mice possess advanced socioemotional abilities and can display non-random symptom patterns indicative of an evolutionary conserved disorder-like phenotype. The DLS approach uses a combined heuristic method based on clinical depression criteria and the Research Domain Criteria to provide a biobehavioural reference syndrome for preclinical rodent models of depression. The DLS criteria are based on available, species-specific evidence and are as follows: (I) minimum duration of phenotype, (II) significant sociofunctional impairment, (III) core biological features, (IV) necessary depressive-like symptoms. To assess DLS presence and severity, we have designed an algorithm to ensure statistical and biological relevance of findings. The algorithm uses a minimum combined threshold for statistical significance and effect size (p value ≤ 0.05 plus moderate effect size) for each DLS criterion. Taken together, the DLS is a novel, biologically founded, and species-specific minimum threshold approach. Its long-term objective is to gradually develop into an inter-model validation standard and microframework to improve phenotyping methodology in translational research.

Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assess a patient's subjective appraisal of health outcomes from their own perspective. Despite hypothesised benefits that feedback  on PROMs can support decision-making in clinical practice and improve outcomes, there is uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of PROMs feedback.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PROMs feedback to patients, or healthcare workers, or both on patient-reported health outcomes and processes of care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, two other databases and two clinical trial registries on 5 October 2020. We searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We included randomised trials directly comparing the effects on outcomes and processes of care of PROMs feedback to healthcare professionals and patients, or both with the impact of not providing such information.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted meta-analyses of the results where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 116 randomised trials which assessed the effectiveness of PROMs feedback in improving processes or outcomes of care, or both in a broad range of disciplines including psychiatry, primary care, and oncology. Studies were conducted across diverse ambulatory primary and secondary care settings in North America, Europe and Australasia. A total of 49,785 patients were included across all the studies. The certainty of the evidence varied between very low and moderate. Many of the studies included in the review were at risk of performance and detection bias. The evidence suggests moderate certainty that PROMs feedback probably improves quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.26; 11 studies; 2687 participants), and leads to an increase in patient-physician communication (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52; 5 studies; 658 participants), diagnosis and notation (risk ratio (RR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.08; 21 studies; 7223 participants), and disease control (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41; 14 studies; 2806 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference for general health perceptions (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24; 2 studies, 552 participants; low-certainty evidence), social functioning (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; 15 studies; 2632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and pain (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.08; 9 studies; 2386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of PROMs feedback on physical functioning (14 studies; 2788 participants) and mental functioning (34 studies; 7782 participants), as well as fatigue (4 studies; 741 participants), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. We did not find studies reporting on adverse effects defined as distress following or related to PROM completion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PROM feedback probably produces moderate improvements in communication between healthcare professionals and patients as well as in diagnosis and notation, and disease control, and small improvements to quality of life. Our confidence in the effects is limited by the risk of bias, heterogeneity and small number of trials conducted to assess outcomes of interest. It is unclear whether   many of these improvements are clinically meaningful or sustainable in the long term. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, particularly studies which employ cluster designs and utilise techniques to maintain allocation concealment.

Clinical effectiveness of patient-oriented depression feedback in primary care: The empirical method of the GET.FEEDBACK.GP multicenter randomized controlled trial

GET.FEEDBACK.GP₁ is a multicenter randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of patient-oriented depression feedback in primary care. This paper describes the complex methods and procedures of the trial. The primary outcome is depression severity six months after feedback, and we vary who is the target of the feedback as follows: no one receives feedback, only general practitioners receive feedback, and both patients and general practitioners receive feedback. The procedure includes a baseline assessment in primary care practices and three telephone follow-up interviews after one, six, and twelve months. The patients completed a baseline assessment, which determined their depression severity. Those with at least a moderate depression severity (PHQ-9₅ ≥ 10) were randomly allocated to three groups stratified by depression severity. A standardized mean difference of d = 0.25 with power 1 - β = 0.80 required a total sample size of N = 699. The patients provided responses regarding the primary and secondary outcomes at follow-up. The extensive planning for GET.FEEDBACK.GP involved experts from diverse medical specialties and external corporations. Of particular importance were (a) blinding in the study inclusion and random assignment with data capture software, (b) representative and unbiased patient selection in practice waiting rooms, (c) a data management and safety plan supplied by a specialized trial center, and (d) the use of participant pseudonyms supplied by a specialized service (Mainzelliste). The data collection started in July 2019 and will continue until June 2022. Five university study centers in Germany are participating in the trial.

The clinical utility of the Distress Thermometer in non-oncological contexts: A scoping review

AIMS

To assess the clinical utility of the Distress Thermometer (DT) in non-cancer populations.

METHODS

The search was performed between the 6th and the 18th of April 2020, on the following databases: Web of Science (all databases included), Scopus and Science Direct. One last update was performed on 5 June 2020. The findings were reported using the PRISMA-ScR.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were included. Overall results indicated that this tool has been used in several contexts and populations (clinical and non-clinical). The DT is highly accessible, suitable and relevant for health professionals and/or researchers who aim to use it as a distress screening tool, particularly in patients with chronic physical conditions. Assumptions about its practicality and acceptability in non-oncology care should be made with caution since few studies have explored the psychometric qualities of this instrument, the completers' perceptions about completing the DT and the perceptions of health professionals who administer the tool.

CONCLUSIONS

This lack of information undermines conclusions about the overall clinical utility of the DT as a screening tool for distress in individuals who do not have cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Future research should aim to fill this gap and investigate the psychometric qualities of the DT through validation studies and, thus, increase the rigour of its application and clinical utility in non-oncological contexts.

[Early Detection of Psychological Comorbidity in Patients Admitted to Dermatological and Internal Medicine Wards: A New Care Model for Psychosomatic Consultation Service]

This article explains the development and implementation of a psychosomatic screening and consultation service for inpatient somatic care. Approximately one in six somatic inpatients has a mental disorder. It is estimated that only half of these cases are properly identified. Consequently, a large proportion of patients remains untreated. To address this gap in care, a psychosomatic early detection programme was developed by an interdisciplinary working group. This programme is based on the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), a psychometrically very well evaluated ultra-short screening questionnaire for the detection of depressive and anxiety disorders. For implementation in routine inpatient care, the PHQ-4 was programmed as a form in the electronic medical record and administered by nursing staff during the admission interview. If the PHQ-4 screening result indicates the presence of a mental comorbidity and the patient expresses a wish for assessment of this disorder, a psychosomatic consultation is automatically ordered. The PHQ-4 was implemented into the clinical routine in four internal medicine and three dermatology wards of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. Documentation of the early diagnosis in the electronic patient record is a minimally costly, less time-consuming and practicable method of providing patients with holistic care through rapid interdisciplinary referral. An evaluation of cost-effectiveness, clinical efficiency, and acceptance is still pending.

Construct validity and psychosocial correlates of the Italian version of the 21-item Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale in primary care

BACKGROUND

Satisfaction with the medical interview has been rarely explored in primary care outside the UK, despite evidence suggesting that a trustful doctor-patient relationship is a key ingredient to facilitate treatment adherence and relief from illness-related distress.

AIMS

The aims of this study are to analyse the construct validity of the Italian version of the Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS-21) and its correlations with two outcome measures, the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self-Report and World Health Organization Quality Of Life Brief Version, in patients with mild-to-moderate depression, recruited in primary care practices.

METHOD

The factor structure underlying the MISS-21 was investigated with principal component analysis, and the internal consistency of the factors was evaluated with Cronbach's alpha. Network analysis was used to investigate the interrelationships among items. The importance of individual items in the network structure was determined with centrality analyses. Correlations of MISS-21 scores with changes in depression and quality of life were analysed with Spearman's correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

The MISS-21 proved to have a robust four-dimensional factor structure. Cronbach's alpha for the factors ranged from 0.77 to 0.93, suggesting good to excellent internal consistency. The four factors identified were positively correlated with improvement in depressive symptoms and three quality-of-life domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The MISS-21 has sound psychometric properties, and comprises four factors related to clinical outcomes, which makes it suitable for clinical and research applications. The central items in the network should be considered as possible targets for quality improvement interventions in primary care.